The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Hudson Yards to Category:Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the article name. Note I elected to not speedy since Hudson Yards is a redirect, so there might be some discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment according to the article, Hudson Yards is a development within the project, so is the category for the development "Hudson Yards", or for the entire project? -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Based on the content, the project. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Traditional Writing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A muddled up attempt at a category. DexDor ( talk) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support the one article in the cat has possible symbolic art, but calling the symbolism "traditional writing" doesn't seems to be a mainstream view. -- Mark viking ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete This does not seem to be worked out to fit with any established methods of making categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• DElete -- I see no logical criterion on what should be included. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: userified to User:Ajshetty/Instrumentation engineering, category now to be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Instrumentation Engineering ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Uncited article in category space. May be appropriate to userfy. DexDor ( talk) 22:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Userfy and delete – Fayenatic L ondon 15:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete; if someone creates Category:Answers in Genesis people and limits it to people who are closely affiliated to that group, that category may be nominated and then the issue can be considered anew. But there's clear consensus here that being a speaker at AiG events would not be defining for the speaker. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Answers in Genesis staff and speakers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A random collection of people from an organisation devoted to promoting pseudoscientific nonsense who, shock horror, stand up and advocate for that organisation's pseudoscientific nonsense. I suppose we could set up a category for signatories to Project Steve. There are very many more of them. Guy ( Help!) 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I don't know why this organization in particular had its own category. All members of the category are in the parent Category:Christian creationists, except for one, Jan Peczkis, who is not identified as a Christian, and so is in Category:Creationists. St Anselm ( talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep To begin with the clear animus in the nomination makes it suspect. Secondly, these people clearly have as a notable trait their connection to the organization. Whether these people are actually notable is another question. I would not be surprised if some would not meet our notability guidelines, but I have not looked into it at all. What is clear is that we have enough articles to justify the category, and this connection is notable to the individuals involved. Connections at this level to an organization are notable and worth categorizing by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I have no animus against the organisation at all. I do have support Wikipedia's policies mandating that pseudoscientific bullshit is not given undue weight. I presume you don't dispute that AiG is a proponent of pseudoscientific bullshit, since that is an objectively established fact. Guy ( Help!) 22:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

There are much better and more WP:NPOV ways to state that they are WP:FRINGE than by using the inflammatory (and profane) terminology that was used. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as akin to WP:OCAT by performance. Thanks, StAnselm, for doing the above check, otherwise I would have said upmerge. Despite my support for the nomination, I must take the nominator to task for making this an attack instead of sticking to WP:NPOV. We need policy-based justifications here, whatever our views of the subject matter. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Potential keep as Category:Answers in Genesis people. Creationism is a sincerely held belief. Quite how science and Genesis are to be reconciled is a matter of debate. I do not take their POV, but this is NOT pure bullshit. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep or rename as per Peterkingiron, for now. There are no clear grounds for deletion here. Notable fringe groups are not summarily deleted, even if they are talking nonsense. If it could be established that this category is not defining for the majority of its members then it would fail WP:SMALLCAT, but in this case that would need to be demonstrated on the individual pages. There is not enough here to delete. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 03:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I'm still sticking with my delete !vote, but if it is kept I would support the rename to Category:Answers in Genesis people. St Anselm ( talk) 03:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Speaking on behalf of this group is not a sufficiently defining aspect of a person to merit a category. The broader Christian creationist category is enough in my opinion. (Also – the commentary on the group rather than the category in this discussion is frankly embarrassing). SFB 13:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete I think the people who are merely fellow creationists who may have spoken at an Answers event don't belong here, and the rest don't form such a large group that they need to be categorized. And, like everyone else, let's maintain civility. Brianyoumans ( talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Giles Cooper Award winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: For people like Tom Stoppard, having received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (he is in more appropriate categories such as Category:English radio writers). On some articles (e.g. Fay Weldon) this award isn't mentioned. See WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There is a list at Giles Cooper Awards#List of winners. DexDor ( talk) 22:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Another Award category we do not need. Not defining to many of the people involved. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- yet another unnecessary awards category. About 6 awards were given per year for about 15 years to 1992. No need to listify. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Commonwealth Universities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It's not clear whether this is intended to be a category for any university in a Commonwealth country (in which case something like "Universities in countries in the Commonwealth of Nations" would be a better name) or for universities that are members of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (in which case the name should be something like "Members of the Association of Commonwealth Universities"). Either way, it does not appear to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. the Eastern Mediterranean University article doesn't mention the Commonwealth). For info: an example of a previous CFD for a group of universities is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10#Category:Coimbra_Group. For info: see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_2#Category:Universities_and_colleges_by_association. DexDor ( talk) 22:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Belonging to these associations does not seem to be a defining characteristic of the universities involved. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete membership of an association is hardly defining. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy merge as duplicate of Category:Assyria per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Assyrian Empire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: One subcat, everything else is at parent. Even the page Assyrian Empire redirects to Assyria. trespassers william ( talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC) trespassers william ( talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy merge to Category:Assyria as duplicate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge into category:Assyria per Bushranger. GreyShark ( dibra) 17:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. I note that both template talk pages were given notice of this discussion on 24 April, but this has not drawn any defenders here. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Episode lists without episode numbers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The documentation for the templates that populate this category, Template:Episode list and Template:Episode list/sublist say that parameter EpisodeNumber is Optional, albeit desirable. Yet the implication of this cat is that the EpisodeNumber is required. Patrollers attempting to clean out this category find that it is littered with so many false positives as to make finding true unintentional EpisodeNumber omissions too difficult to be worth the trouble. For example, in List of Green Acres episodes, the TV movie needed to be numbered 171 in the series to make the categorization go away. List of Cold Feet episodes needed to have its pilot labeled as "episode zero". Template:Character list transcludes this template, so that would imply renaming the category Episode lists without episode numbers and character lists without character numbers. Fortunately only List of Highlander characters and List of The Thick of It characters use that new template, so it's not too late to nip that nonsense in the bud. Why is the generically titled {{ Character list}} put in WikiProject Highlander on its talk page? Then we have Silent Witness#Novels, where {{ Episode list}} lists novels rather than episodes, and the list is numbered using the Aux1 general purpose parameter, which puts the numbering in a different column. Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless this is fulfilling a useful administrative function as a hidden category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Hemiptera stubs and delete template:Coleorrhyncha-stub. All are already within the other parent Category:Coleorrhyncha. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Coleorrhyncha stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small stub category. At first glance, does not appear to have enough article to fill a stub category (60) even if all species included. Dawynn ( talk) 17:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Feel free to prune or split as suggested. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming:

Category:Fictional deities to Category:Fictional deities and demigods

• Nominator's rationale: Some technically aren't "gods" or even "deities" and most are considered "divine" in some way. For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories. -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Parent is Category:Deities, subcategories use "deities", main article is List of deities in fiction. The term that has been decided to be used here is "deities" for the group, whether it's completely accurate or not. If Category:Deities and its subcategories are in error then the tree needs to be discussed as a whole, instead of creating one non-conforming partial branch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose why are you adding "demigod" ? If it's not a deity, it should be removed. Fictional superpowered beings might be considered for those. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - just remove anyone who isn't a deity. Feel free to create a Category:Fictional demigods if you want to. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Invasions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: !Delete. Like a 2006 comment on Talk, I don't see the point. Technical aspects of operations are better covered on Category:Military operations by type. Sister cats on Category:Wars by type are mostly about conditions of motives or legal status, and many of the current cat members seem to be mildly POV pushing. trespassers william ( talk) 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC) trespassers william ( talk) 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• q what do you propose to do with the contents? im not sure I see the POV pushing. an invasion is an invasion, and we have lots of articles and categories titled "Invasion of X", etc.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The ones I checked have enaogh legit parents as they are, so I don't propose anything should be done with them. trespassers william ( talk) 19:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. An invasion is an invasion, there is nothing "POV-pushing" about it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• keeep no valid reason for deletion. This is not a 'type of military operation'; it is a type of war and is so categorized. Hmains ( talk) 02:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Per the article Invasion, they can be either wars, operations or both (offense and counter-offense disscussion at one breath). The Invasion of Normandy et al. are not wars. Note that presently, even Wars by type is under Military Operations, because this parent does concern itself with magnitude.

Right now it is extremely underpopulated, focused on a few countries, which made me think of a history POVs. I beleive that if this category is fully populated, it will resemble Category:Wars, maybe in combination with something in Category:Military operations. trespassers william ( talk) 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose on procedural grounds as there are subcats such as Category:World War II invasions that sit under this category (i.e. those subcats would need to be deleted first or at the same time). This category needs some clear inclusion criteria (possibly based on the lead of the Invasion article). E.g. the category currently contains the Vietnamese border raids in Thailand article, but not many other articles about cross-border SF ops etc. DexDor ( talk) 19:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Why would they need to be deleted? trespassers william ( talk) 19:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

As long as we have Category:Invasions in fiction‎, Category:Cancelled invasions‎ etc then it makes sense to group them all under Category:Invasions. Most "X in Y" categories have a parent category for both X and Y. DexDor ( talk) 19:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

User:DexDor, sorry for the pause, has the ball gotten to my court? If it isn't solid enough for proper topics, it shouldn't be kept just for ephemera to haunt. Invasions in fiction would go under Category:Wars in fiction or Category:Military fiction. Cancelled invasions, is already under Category:Cancelled military operations. Are you sure there is any good in attaching them to the other branch? Who would miss them there? trespassers william ( talk) 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC) reply

If there is a good reason to delete Category:Invasions then surely that same reason also applies to Category:Invasions of the United Kingdom‎, Category:Invasions by the United States‎ etc - either CFD them all together or start by CFDing the lower categories. Deleting just the top "invasion" category would make it harder to navigate between the remaining "invasion" categories. DexDor ( talk) 19:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Who invaded who is at times open to dispute. I think "invasion" is a more POV statement than some thing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep but define and prune, and add a statement that it should hold only pages/categories (i) with "invasion" in the name or (ii) where there has been a consensus on the talk page to include them in this category. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Rahul Dev Burman to Category:Film scores by Rahul Dev Burman
• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Anand-Milind to Category:Film scores by Anand–Milind
• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Sachin Dev Burman to Category:Film scores by Sachin Dev Burman
• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Jatin Lalit to Category:Film scores by Jatin–Lalit
• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Kalyanji Anandji to Category:Film scores by Kalyanji Anandji
• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Laxmikant-Pyarelal to Category:Film scores by Laxmikant–Pyarelal
• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Madan Mohan to Category:Film scores by Madan Mohan
• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Nadeem-Shravan to Category:Film scores by Nadeem–Shravan
• Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Shankar Jaikishan to Category:Film scores by Shankar Jaikishan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are like the recent decision for Ilaiyaraaja; again, the contents are primarily films for which these composers wrote the score. They should be moved to the new names. This nomination is without prejudice to re-creating the categories if there are sufficient other types of notable composition by each composer. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note: Some of the nominations also replace a hyphen or space with a dash, to match the corresponding article; see WP:DASH for the reason. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment only I am not convinced. Does it cease to be a composition because it is used in a film? The defining part is because say, Rahul Dev Burman, has written a piece of music, not because somebody else has added to a film. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Richhoncho, these persons/teams all compose primarily for films; but more to the point, the members of the categories are films rather than musical compositions, so they should be in the Category:Film scores by composer hierarchy rather than the Compositions hierarchy. Sorry, I should have said that. Also, please note my "without prejudice" comment in the nomination, about re-creating the Compositions categories if there are suitable articles to go in them.. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Fayenatic. I take your point, and I didn't realize when I posted above that he articles were films and not compositions. Still not convinced though we have the correct target page, perhaps something along the lines of Films with a soundtrack (score?) by... might be clearer. I am still not opposing your nomination, just wondering if it can be improved. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I've followed the current naming convention, but I would support changing to one of those or "Films scored by..." as an improvement. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• WT:WikiProject Composers has been notified. – Fayenatic L ondon
• WT:WikiProject Film has been notified. – Fayenatic L ondon

• Support the main proposal -- good clarification. (Note: I don't think it's necessary or desirable to rename Category:Film scores by composer as suggested in the middle of the discussion. The existing name is clear enough.) -- Stfg ( talk) 14:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: In case of Indian films, many songs are included in them and it is not necessary that the "background music" and the "music of the songs" is composed by one person. Actually, they have been composed by different people since long. But its only recently that the former category of people are also recognized for their work. Where the category for Music Director at Filmfare existed since start, a separate category was started for background score composers only in 1997. While the proposal to change the name is right, the proposed "film score" is still not precise enough as film score is a combined word for music of songs as well as the background music. How is Category:Films with music composed by ABC as main category with Category:Films with songs composed by ABC and Category:Films with background scores composed by ABC? Frankly speaking, categorizing by background score is not really needed as such even though various awards have this separate category. But lets see what others have to say about it. And the main category can be Category:Music composed by ABC. The tree being thus...

1. Category:Music composed by ABC (will have 2 categories)
1.1. Category:Songs composed by ABC (will have articles about songs)
1.2. Category:Films with music composed by ABC (will have 2 categories)
1.2.1. Category:Films with songs composed by ABC (will have articles about films)
1.2.2. Category:Films with background scores composed by ABC (will have articles about films)
Over categorization is it? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Rename since the articles are on films. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (which, practically speaking, means a straight delete since all articles are already in the target category or an appropriate subcategory). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:New-Nollywood films to Category:Nigerian films

Nominator's rationale: Original research category. Nothing even mentioned on the Nollywood article to suggest this is true. Merge into main country category. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: the Nollywood article isn't up to date. the category is a very notable topic, readers may want to view films that belong to that category. you can check these links to prove that it is a worthy category.

• 'New Nigeria Cinema' sparks Nollywood renaissance
• Nigerian helmer leads ‘New Nollywood’

It is not an Original research.-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 19:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: Then again, the term doesn't always refer to Nigerian films. So it can't be merged into the category.-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: It is definitely a notable category and would form a very essential arrangement. My only problem with it is the Wikipedian definition for it. There are some films that meets his defination that are not New-Nollywood films! Here are a few more links to showcase its notability 1, 2, 3. Darreg ( talk) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• — Note to closing admin: Jamie Tubers ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge We categorize films by nation of production, and at times by language of production, this is a non-supported way of categorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge. JPL is right, this steps outside the standardised form of catergorisation for this subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment:I didn't see any part of WP:CAT that states that some categories shouldn't be created, or infact anything related to what y'all are trying to say. Where did you guys invent your "standard" from?-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:EDITCONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted from CFD 2014 April 2 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Category:Bollywood films is just a redirect; Category:Hollywood films doesn't even exist. Merge per nom. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete, this is an intersection of films by date and country, which we don't otherwise do; see the categories within Category:Films. There is no need to merge because the category has been added rather than changed from an existing one, and each film is already either in Category:Nigerian films or an accepted more specific sub-cat, e.g. by genre. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, except on the fact that if it is to exist, it should generally only be a container category and should not be applied directly to articles. There was general agreement on that point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Actors of European descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't need this category - actors of european descent do not have a sufficient relation with the topic to merit this category in terms of being spoken of specially. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: There are many people all over world who are of European descent and they are known to have different occupations. For example, actors and actresses. I understand that this category is new but it's an interesting topic and needs to be expanded. Are you saying that categorizing pages in Category:People of European descent by their various occupations is not important? See also: Category:American actors of Chinese descent. Have you nominated that too? Stanleytux ( talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I think the whole (x people of y descent) is problematic but don't have the energy to address it...-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Just shoot it and put it out of its misery! I pretty much agree with you. The entire descent tree is full of subjectivity. No one has been able to provide objective inclusion criteria. If you nominate one category someone will complain that you are cherry picking one category. If you try a mass nomination, the someone will complain that the nomination covers too much and the few exceptions can not be adequately discussed. My question is how many generations removed before you no longer qualify or what percentage of your blood is needed to qualify. If we don't have answers to those questions, then we must delete. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- as initiator of the Category:Actors of European descent CFD (see [1]). Thanks to Obi-Wan Kenobi for carrying on after I left off. Quis separabit? 00:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC) per rationale for deletion of Category: Actors by ethnicity (reworded rationale on this date). Quis separabit? 15:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose This is a container category, sort of like Category:Actors of Asian descent. In some cases, actors being of European descent (such as in Hindi productons) may well lead to the groups being spoken of. I do have to wonder if we need odd categories like Cateogry:European actresses in Hindi cinema and Category:Actresses in Hindi cinema of European descent, but I don't think the answer is removing this holding category. I am debating whether the Category:Basque actors should also go here. I actually might support ending this category, if we also scrapped the equally problematic Asian descent category. To leave one and remove the other will just add to U.S. bias in the encyclopedia. From a world perspective, neither of these things is more or less useful. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent. There are not enough subcategories for it to be necessary to split this by continent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have more responses to the suggestion that this be retained as a {{ container category}} (and tagged as such), and for editors who support deletion/merger to clarify why they support removing this category while we retain the parallel Category:Actors of Asian descent.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete unmaintainable race/ethnic category; yes other crap exists like the Asian one and all the others, which ought to be axed too. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. All "descent" categories should be deleted as the ethnicity/nationality of a persons great-grandparents is rarely a WP:DEFINING characteristic and can lead to an article being in a lot of categories. However, the deletion should start with the lower categories (e.g. Category:Male actors of Italian descent) and work up or do the whole lot in one go. DexDor ( talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I had a friend who was at least as removed from China as his great-grandparents, and only on his father's side did he have Chinese ancestry, but I would not argue his descent was not defining. I could come up with lots of other cases for other ancestries. If you have 8 different descents from all 8 great-grandparents that is one thing, and there are people whose descent is less than defining, but there are people for whom it is very defining. Arguably though these descent categories were made more to bolster Italian-American feelings of success than because all the people so categorized were clearly of Italian descent. The big problem is that we have no clear way to distinguish the person who we know had some Cornish descent, but they never cared, and the person who ate Cornish food and sang Cornish songs, even though they lived their whole life in Pennsylvania. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep as a container category only. As there is a parent Category:People of European descent, I can't think of a good reason to remove this as a part of the hierarchy and an aid to navigation. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• WEak keep but only as a container cat. Most of the content is middle European countries. Booian people of fooan sescetn is a well established tree. It was altered to that format some years ago, but unfortunately the US categories were left unchanged. Despite a recent announcement Cornish (which is not a sub-cat) does not provide a useful case study for the currnet issue. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete the entire tree of Category:People by ethnic or national descent, since 'descent' is an unbounded term. (At the very best you might have category trees like 'people who permanently emigrated' and 'children of people who permanently emigrated'.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Soundtracks by Indian artists to Category:Filmi soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is in the hierarchy Category:Soundtracks by artist nationality which is intended to collate sub-categories by artist (performer). However, all the sub-categories are by composer, not performer; they are already also categorised in Category:soundtracks by composer. (In some cases, the composers also performed a minority of the songs, but the albums are predominantly performed by "various artists" rather than the composers.) Filmi is music of Indian cinema, and I think this would make a better name. The move should be without prejudice to re-creation if categories of soundtrack albums by performer in India turn up later. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose This name change would force it out of the artist by nationality structure. A film composer for Indian cinema is not necessarily Indian (e.g. Khalil Ahmed, Khawaja Khurshid Anwar). SFB 20:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sillyfolkboy: none of the current contents are sub-categories by artist, hence it is entirely intentional that these should be taken out of the artist by nationality hierarchy. As stated, the proposal is without prejudice to re-creating the category if there are (now or in the future) any categories of soundtracks by artist, where the artist is Indian. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • @ Fayenatic london: In which case, haven't we already got a category that covers this scope at Category:Filmi albums? SFB 15:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply
      • @ Sillyfolkboy: I think Filmi albums may include compilations of a singer's songs from multiple films, whereas a soundtrack album must be from or related to one film. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply
        • @ Fayenatic london:Maybe I don't know enough about the topic, but I feel that starting a soundtrack category would leave the albums category as an empty shell with just a small minority of compilation albums. Lots of the content in the Filmi structure is already problematic. Is it a suitable parent for Category:Colonial Cousins albums and Category:Hariharan (singer) albums? Why is Category:Pakistani film singers in the main category? This mess makes it hard to see what a Filmi category actually whould look like. SFB 09:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
          • @ Sillyfolkboy: I recategorised two of those, and started a hierarchy for Category:Pakistani film music. I don't see a problem with Category:Filmi albums holding compilation albums and a sub-cat for soundtrack albums. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Support given category reorganisation. SFB 17:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Filmi is a term commonly used for Bollywood (Hindi) music, but only rarely for many of the regional variants -- Tamil/Telugu/Bengali/Kannada/Malayalam soundtracks and there are a lot of those in this category. Our article isn't exactly well sourced on that count (the references predominantly use soundtrack or playback). — Spaceman Spiff 17:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename:

• Category:Hydrogen rocket engines to Category:Rocket engines using hydrogen propellant
• Category:Kerosene rocket engines to Category:Rocket engines using kerosene propellant
• Category:Methane rocket engines to Category:Rocket engines using methane propellant

– Fayenatic L ondon 14:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming:

• Category:Hydrogen rocket engines to Category:Hydrogen-fueled rocket engines
• Category:Kerosene rocket engines to Category:Kerosene-fueled rocket engines
• Category:Methane rocket engines to Category:Methane-fueled rocket engines

Nominator's rationale: These are rocket engines that use the named propellent for fuel. They aren't rockets for it, or rockets used by it - "Foo-fuelled" should be the standard for this sort of thing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support—on all three proposals. The new names would be more clear, as bipropellant rocket engines—of which H2, RP-1, and methane engines all are—all have an oxidizer as well. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• support for these.

What's to happen with cats such as Category:Hydrogen peroxide (cold cycle) rocket engines and Category:Hydrogen peroxide (hot cycle) rocket engines, or other monopropellants? Are we going to create oxidiser categories in similar fashion?

While I've got your attention, can we also please avoid some recent rocket motor renames, such as Waxwing (Rocket motor) to Waxwing (rocket engine). There is a strong convention that solid fuels are motors, not engines. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I realised afterwards that that last one was a mis-step for exactly that reason, thanks for fixing it because I did. I believe a Category:Hydrogen peroxide-fueled rocket engines would be appropriate, but not by-cycle. Not sure about oxidisers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• spelling: as the proposer says, "Foo-fuelled" with two 'l's is better English. Otherwise, to be ENGVAR neutral call them: Category:Hydrogen-fuel rocket engines , Category:Kerosene-fuel rocket engines , Category:Methane-fueled rocket engines Ephebi ( talk) 16:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • "-fuel" is horrible gramatically. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted from CFD 2014 April 8 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose "fuelled" as the option due to spelling issues. Vegaswikian ( talk) 16:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • In what way is there a spelling issue? What alternative do you suggest? Category:Rocket engines using hydrogen fuel etc.? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Fuelled does not pass the spellchecker. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Ahh, I mis-read your original statement, sorry. What about -fueled? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
        • That passes my spellchecker. So not an issue. I guess I support these. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
          • Oppose "fueled" it is misspelled. It should be "fuelled" -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
            • Spellcheck disagrees with you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
              • What language are you using? Oxford Dictionary: "fuelled" -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
                • First, please assume good faith and be careful not to cast aspersions upon other editors. I am using English, and I never said "fuelled" was in error. However, "fueled" is not misspelled. (In fact, according to Firefox spellcheck for me - and I presume for Vegaswikian - "fuelled" requires correction to "fueled".) This is, I believe, a situation of WP:ENGVAR; as neither spelling is incorrect or "more correct", there are no strong national ties dictating the use of one spelling or the other, and non-variant alternatives introduce nastily awkward grammar, it's simply a case of "first come, first served". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
                  • Your spellcheck depends on what language you chose. There is no aspersion evident, since it is called "Language settings". I have never met someone who called that setting "dialect setting". Vegaswikian said it was misspelt, I simply used the same wording on the issue of misspelling. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

It occurs to me that there may be an alternative here avoiding the "fueled"/"fuelled" ENGVAR debate, although it will make the category titles longer. What do people think of the following titles?

• Category:Hydrogen rocket engines to Category:Rocket engines using hydrogen propellant
• Category:Kerosene rocket engines to Category:Rocket engines using kerosene propellant
• Category:Methane rocket engines to Category:Rocket engines using methane propellant

This would also allow for "Monopropllant rocket engines" to become "Rocket engines using monopropellant", matching the others, whereas the original proposal would leave it the 'odd cat out'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

"Propellant" has a majorly different meaning from "fuel", given that we're usually talking about bipropellant engines and so need to distinguish these two. It would be a really bad idea for a trivial issue of grammar or language to escalate itself up into making such a semantic difference. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree that "fueled" is better, myself (the fact that "monopropellant" can be fit into the second scheme but not the first notwithstanding), but I figured it was a good idea to at least throw it at the wall and see if it stuck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support all three changes if either the original proposal Category:xxx rocket engines to Category:xxx-fueled rocket engines or to Category:Rocket engines using xxx propellant. Oppose the use of "fuelled", in any form. And I should clarify, am not saying "fuelled" is incorrect, as I am aware (but only in the past year) of the ENGVAR issue on that word. Best solution is probably to use an approach, if there is consensus that such an approach exists, that avoids both "fueled" and "fuelled" in order to just avoid that issue, and showing up as wrong in a large number of spell-checkers. N2e ( talk) 10:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: I see the point raised by Andy, and am aware of the distinction between fuel and oxidizer in bipropellant engines. It is fairly rare that any of hydrogen, methane, or kerosene are used as cold-gas thruster (monopropellant) engines. However, it is possible to do so, has been tested, and is even proposed for some corner-case uses; see for example ACES which proposes to use hydrogen boil-off on long term storage of a combination upper-stage/in-space-propellant-storage-facility directly as propellant, and not as a fuel to be combined with an oxidizer, for long-term attitude control and small orbital adjustments. In other words, I believe that Category:Rocket engines using xxx propellant would have a scope that is a bit wider, and would include BOTH hydrogen-fueled bipropellant rocket engines AND hydrogen-propellant cold gas thrusters such as proposed for ACES.

(I'll also say that I can't wait until widespread global English practice eliminates more and more of the double-consonants in the various varieties of spelled English. But I realize that time is not here at this time.) Cheers. N2e ( talk) 11:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

There are several "hot" monopropellant hydrogen engines, depending on your definition of rocket, it would fit (thermal instead of combustion engines (ie. NERVA), plasma, etc) -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 02:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Cold cycle hydrogen peroxide is an important monopropellant, and also an important oxidiser in hot cycle engines. Categorization should distinguish these. There's little point in any categorization beyond "burny hot stuff" unless we can achieve useful and subject-relevant categorization like this. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Which is why hydrogen peroxide =/= hydrogen (the latter's common useage in rocketry meaning LH2). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Piano rock songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category deleted once before see CfD here. I can see a reason for keep, and I can see good reasons to delete, Is any song with a piano on it to be categorized? and most importantly, song articles are just that, about songs, not about specific recordings of songs. So is arrangement of a song defining? Twinkle says I have to decide to delete to nominate, but I am happier with a consensus - either way. Richhoncho ( talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Question is piano rock recognized as a genre separate from other rock genres? It seems most of these could be just rock or rock ballads. Genre categorization is always a bit tricky. I have no strong opinions yet.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Fair question. I would say no, a look at Category:Rock songs by genre makes me think a pruning of these categories is necessary. Reggae rock songs? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 06:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted from CFD 2014 April 8 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete As being non defining. Essentially a catch-all category for ANY (rock) song that has a piano part. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. The category was deleted before because there was no article. Now there is: piano rock. Moreover, it has counterparts on several foreign wikipedias, e.g. Italian since 2007. They are not well-sourced but appear to be sufficiently sourced to be kept. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete the content of this category appears to be "any song broadly classified as rock which prominently features a keyboard instrument". The article for piano rock doesn't seem to define it any more narrowly than that. We could easily end up with a huge chunk of all rock song articles being put in this category. Any "genre" that could feasibly include things as different as Bohemian Rhapsody, November Rain and A Day in the Life is clearly not defining by any stretch of the imagination. SFB 16:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• See also AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano rock (2nd nomination). -- BDD ( talk) 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep (conditionally). The parent article exists, seems moderately well-defined, or definable, and the categorized articles seem reasonably categorised here. Keep, subject to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piano_rock_(2nd_nomination) resulting in a keep, which is seems to be headed to. Finely dividied categories does not equate to overcategorization. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the "delete" outcome of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piano_rock_(2nd_nomination). Deletion of the paretn article means delete the category. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Agreed, changing my opinion to delete now that the primary topic article has been deleted. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Small, undefined genre categories make navigation harder. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Propose merging:

• Category:Czech people of World War II to Category:Czechoslovak people of World War II
• Category:Slovak people of World War II to Category:Czechoslovak people of World War II
• Category:Czech collaborators with Nazi Germany to Category:Czechoslovak collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Category:Slovak collaborators with Nazi Germany to Category:Czechoslovak collaborators with Nazi Germany

Nominator's rationale: From 1918 to 1991, the country was Czechoslovakia. The Czech Republic and Slovakia did not exist as separate countries. The demonym of Czechoslovakia was Czechoslovak. Hoops gza ( talk) 21:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep as is. A look at the parent category structure shows that these are nationality categories, not country categories. Czech people and Slovak people are different nationalities and so are appropriately currently categorized here. Hmains ( talk) 22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - The parent category structure is not real proof of anything. These categories might have been falsely created based on modern geographical locations of the people's places of birth/residence. I'm no expert on Czechoslovakia, but I'm not sure that Czechia and Slovakia were even separate states during the time of Czechoslovakia, which would mean that they were not separate nationalities at that time. Perhaps someone with more knowledge in the field knows. Hoops gza ( talk) 22:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Again, these are about nationalities, not countries, so they have nothing to do with what you are stating. Hmains ( talk) 23:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose there was a puppet state of Slovakia during WWII. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Support Keep the contextual timeline. For WWII, Czechoslovak is the appropriate demonym. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Support Czechoslovak is the right term. For what we are defining here, Czech and Slovak do not work. The nationality was Czechoslovak. This really reflects the presentist bias in creating categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Just have both (oppose). Have the Czech and Slovak categories be subcategories of the Czechoslovak ones. Since Czechoslovakia was pretty much dismembered during the war, with a puppet Slovak state existing for some of the time, I think it's probably OK to use both forms of categorization. The nationality that existed pre-war was Czechoslovak, but people still identified as being of Czech or Slovak nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted from CFD 2014 April 13 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep all three Slovak Republic (1939–45) clearly shows that Slovakia did exist. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Although IIRC there was a government in exile with de jure continuity, de facto Czecho-Slovakia (as then was) collapsed in early 1939 with the Czech rump absorbed by Germany, the Slovak half set up as a somewhat independent state and other parts were annexed by neighbouring countries. The state was restored to its pre 1938 borders after the Second World War but for the war itself separate categories make sense. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as pointed out "between 1918 and 1991..." is incorrect. The correct is "between 1918 and 1938, and between 1946 and 1991..." and World War II falls in between. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:London Symphony Orchestra film scores to Category:London Symphony Orchestra soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are not films, but soundtrack albums. – Fayenatic L ondon 10:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:John Williams albums to Category:John Williams soundtracks
• Propose renaming Category:Sneha Khanwalkar albums to Category:Sneha Khanwalkar soundtracks
• Propose renaming Category:Shankar–Ehsaan–Loy albums to Category:Shankar–Ehsaan–Loy soundtracks
• Propose renaming Category:Soundtracks by Vishal-Shekhar to Category:Vishal–Shekhar soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are soundtracks categorised by composer, not albums by artist (performer). The parent Category:Soundtracks by composer is new and sparsely populated, so there is not yet a sufficiently established pattern for a speedy nomination. – Fayenatic L ondon 10:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment The John Williams category should be titled Category:John Williams' soundtracks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree. The name is used as a noun modifier i.e. a descriptive adjective, not a possessive adjective. None of the others have apostrophes. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
    • "None of the others have apostrophes." Argumentum ad populum. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
      • More like argumentum ad consensusium. If this is wrong, the entire tree needs to be discussed, but until then, they need to conform whether or not it's true. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment John Williams is also a conductor. Some of his recordings (e.g. Boston Pops' albums) are not soundtracks. John Williams Greatest Hits 1969–1999 and Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Other Great Space Music contain concert suites (including another composers'). I suggest creating a new category Category:John Williams soundtracks under Category:John Williams albums and categorising articles regarding his soundtracks. -- Tijd-jp ( talk) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Response: Thank you, I have removed that one from the nom.
• Rename all per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom, John Williams removed. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Geography of Queens County, New York to Category:Geography of Queens, New York

Nominator's rationale: The other boroughs of New York City all use the borough name, not the county name. While the "New York" part is the way the categories related to Queens are named (due to ambiguity with Queen), the "County" is not. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• do not change Nomination is incorrect. Each of the counties of New York state is named in this way, including those counties that are part of New York City. See Category:Geography of New York by county for each one. Hmains ( talk) 04:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Not all of them - Category:Geography of Staten Island, although its subcategories are split. Kennethaw88 • talk 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Done fixed. Thanks Hmains ( talk) 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The relevant parent category here is Category:Geography of New York by county, which uses this naming form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • What makes this more relevant than the parent Category:Geography of New York City? The other 4 are called Category:Geography of the Bronx‎, Category:Geography of Brooklyn, Category:Geography of Manhattan and Category:Geography of Staten Island - and not Category:Geography of Bronx County, New Yrok, Category:Geography of Kings Couny, New York, Category:Geography of New York County, New York and Category:Geography of Richomnd County, New York. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: split to relevant geographical sub-cat of Category:World War II airfields. It may be that they are all already so categorised. As for the split suggested by user:The Bushranger, some member pages are in the US; and I do not see an obvious benefit in a new North Africa category as this would cut across some sub-cats of Category:World War II airfields in Africa. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:World War II desert airfields to Category:World War II airfields

Nominator's rationale: Being in a desert is not especially WP:DEFINING for an airfield, and there is no "Desert airfields" or "Airfields by biome" category tree. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• merge I'm not sure why this was created in the first place, seeing as how it cuts across the way the parent's subcats are otherwise organized. Mangoe ( talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• selective upmerge to Middle east and Africa, where most of these fields seem to be. The parent merge target above is mostly empty, so we shouldn't dump them there, better to do a selective upmerge to appropriate non-desert parents but with more specific geographies.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• REname to Category:World War II airfields in Middle East and North Africa and purge of any others or split to Category:World War II airfields in North Africa and Category:World War II airfields in Middle East. The nom would amalgamate airfields in UK with those in other theatres of war, which is unattractive. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • A Split between Category:World War II airfields in North Africa and Category:World War II airfields in the Middle East would work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename per C2C. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Lehigh Valley Hospitals to Category:Hospitals in the Lehigh Valley

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the format of other subcategories in Category:Hospitals in Pennsylvania. The hospitals are located in a place and it does not own the hospitals. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.